Some Miscellaneous Thoughts on the Clinical Practice of Modern Psychoanalysis

Some Miscellaneous Thoughts on the Clinical Practice of Modern Psychoanalysis

These thoughts and questions are primarily directed to modern therapists. In this context I’m assuming that modern analysts are already aware that they have their own “blind spots” and defense mechanisms - first, as people; and, second, as analysts, to protect them from “dangers” of the analytic situation.

The Omnipotent Analyst

While the curative mechanism we use is talking, language also uses and intensifies our feelings of omnipotent control. In reality language is simply an overlay on top of the organizing functions of our brain which are emotional/implicit/non-semantic memories, more primitive and present from birth. (See e.g., Fennessy, 2006).

In this respect, analysts in training sometimes succumb to the temptations of finding new outlets for their own narcissism through a mechanism that looks something like the following:

“Aha, now I am fully aware of what the pattern is… I am getting so aware (so much better)… (and then) …. Now I am much better and much more aware of everything….”

In other words, the narcissism of the analytic student does not disappear, but simply changes it's manifestation – creating in some cases omnipotent analysts who merely portray self-aware analysts. It’s a type of play-acting that many of us are all too familiar with.

This becomes a challenge for both analysts and patients when therapeutic sessions contain lots of primitive material on both sides, or when the analyst must face the challenge of feelings aroused in the statement “I’m doing nothing.”

The ultimate problem for the therapist is encapsulated in a recent comment by an esteemed mentor of mine: “It’s the resistance that burns you out, not the feelings.”

Analysts with these challenges may tend to avoid numerous feelings, including positive feelings such as love and compassion, as well as negative feelings. Using Winnicott’s term, over a period of time the “continuity of being” of the analyst may even be severely threatened.

While some of us may be under the impression that everything revolves around us, therapists don’t usually have less of the narcissistic instinct than others do, though it makes a bigger difference to us and to our patients than some realize.

We might ask, why have we chosen a “helping” profession in the first place? I think this is an important question for each of us to answer.

Some analysts maintain an attitude of helping, or wanting to help, as their main source of satisfaction or fulfillment for doing the therapeutic work. This is not necessarily an impediment to good work. Insofar as this attitude represents a feeling, or set of feelings, it should be experienced and worked through; and there may be situations where the analyst can use the feeling.

However, in a clinical sense it is important, for the patient and the analyst; that all of the narcissistic components be worked through; because of the analyst’s need to separate their impulses from what might need to happen in the room to actually help the patient.

The Importance of Emotional Education

The education of modern analysts through Transference and Resistance Workshops in each school term (previously mentioned in this forum) provides the necessary environment for training many modern therapists in working out these important issues.

The long term group environment of the “T&R Workshops” help students examine and work through their own emotions and tendencies at the same time as they observe and interact with the emotions and tendencies of other members of the group.

Students learn to experience the delicate balance of feelings that we all have throughout life. In this context, we may find that our own narcissism becomes increasing annoying to us over the years; we may also learn that many of us overevaluate our relationships in the workshop, or the other members of the group; or that our own narcissistically-based activities may carry a degree of risk (of narcissistic injury) to us due to the overvaluation of objects.

We may also learn that it’s better to go with the feelings; rather than try to force the balance and that there’s a limitation to most attitudes when we try to consciously impose them on ourselves, rather than let them develop naturally. Or, we may be aware of that constant tug-of-war between living in one’s own head and living in the world.

The workshops, when later combined with the powerful effects of our own analyses, individual and groups supervision, and case presentations, help modern analysts become far more effective with their own impulses and with others.

As with our patients, the repetition of certain statements or certain important things over a period of time helps with the learning process and our development of different perspectives. It’s a life-long process for most of us.

Talking

While we need to learn to work with our feelings, we also need to keep in mind that for many patients it’s not the similitude of feelings, but the similitude of words that makes a difference in modern analysis. This is not to infer that therapy doesn’t need to be something of a genuine relationship, at least in the sense that genuine emotions are involved. But, we must also understand that successful modern therapy depends on staying with the patient, not taking the patient where we want them to be.

We do not understand everything. Other things we know something of, but many of those are still imperfectly understood – such as whether and how might protective impulses overlap with aggressive impulses. How often do we seek to “protect” our patients – intervening as well-meaning parents may have in the past to cut off their free associations?

A little goes a long way. Many of us tend to think that our words need to “make an impression” on others. A natural human tendency is to use an abundance of words where less will do, or to repeat ourselves, or to overemphasize our points. In my experience, patients are much more sensitive to our words than we normally realize.

Opposing our native tendencies, it could be said that words tend to have more value when we use them less often (though hopefully measuring those words we do use). The fact that an intervention or clinical technique of some kind may be warranted in a particular case should not cause the therapist to leap ahead in an unrestrained manner. Are we simply suppressing our own narcissism for a time, waiting for the opportunity to display our brilliance?

While thinking of my patients, I’m sometimes reminded of an interaction I observed a while ago:

I was sitting in a waiting room when a mother came in with her young daughter; the child was about 2 years old. There was a big bucket of toys in the waiting room and some children’s books. The young girl was quite active; crawling around on the floor; grabbing toys, offering some toys to the mother and quickly moving on to the next toy. For quite some time the mother pursued the child; constantly trying to interest her daughter in a book the mother held, but to no avail. As it became increasingly important to the mother to interest the child in the book; the child remained active, but undeterred from her own tasks. At one point the mother looked at me in frustration and apologetically stated, “She doesn’t read.” I remember having strong feelings of wanting to say something to the mother, but also thinking it would be too intrusive to do so. It was most saddening to me that the mother ignored the child’s attempts at communication (with the proffered toys) as much as the child ignored the mother’s crazy attempts to force her 2 year old to read.

To help our patients we need to learn to pay attention to their efforts to communicate and recall how difficult that may be for some. Sticking closely as possible to the patient’s own words, and staying with the patient where s/he is, are most important.

According to my same mentor “patients have lives outside of their sessions with us.” We might also like to keep in mind that the successive frustrations inherent in personality growth make the ordinary living of life an exceedingly difficult task for extremely disturbed persons; their entire lives may be exercises in frustration and/or anxiety.

Just as mental/emotional difficulties are usually multi-determined and over-determined, so therapists and patients alike frequently have more than one reason for what they say or do. So often in observing individuals with difficulties we might say “They must be doing this on purpose.” To an outside observer it may look that way, or it may look like acting or melodrama; while the internal experience of the patient could be quite different.

While our words may be the same, meanings remain individual to each one of us. What makes what happens in the session real? How do we bring the reality of the patient’s life/patient’s emotions into the room? You don’t disclose everything – why should your patients? I suppose it doesn’t hurt to have as many explanations as possible available to us when we are feeling perplexed by some of our patients.

Yet, our theories and ideas can also get in the way of good treatment. So we say that to the extent that a particular view, or model, or idea helps us with a particular patient in a clinical setting it should be maintained and to the extent that it does not help us, it should be discarded or filed away for future clinical use.

And every interruption interrupts the patient’s free association. Additionally, anything the analyst says creates a counterpressure in the patient; (e.g., one may actually increase the amount of action by specifying it’s prohibition).

The frustration engendered by the analyst intervening at the patient’s point of defensive operations can also work as a re-creation of that primary frustration that started things along the continuum. If so, the analyst walks a fine line, keeping that frustration within certain limits; protecting the patient and allowing the growth process to develop further.

Of course, that’s the point. Clinically, the only value of transference is that it can develop into resistance and be resolved. Don’t foreclose opportunities for transference - whenever you speak, you do! (e.g., “Of course, we could never have sex;)” (unless your patient is psychotic).

What is the importance of the analyst as a suitable “object” for the patient? - i.e., it would do less good for a patient to lie on a couch in an empty room and talk to the walls - there is an intrinsic importance to talking to an acceptable “other.”

The acceptance of all of our feelings

Our society sometimes mirrors that “mind-body split” that takes place as part of our maturation.

I’m reminded of someone I know who has all kinds of unusual physical things going on, but he’s seen a number of doctors and had countless tests in the past few years, and they can’t seem to find much wrong with him. His wife recently commented that he was at the end of his rope and “willing to try anything.” I asked if he’d be willing to talk with someone and was quickly told, “Oh, he would never do that!”

While not usually desired in life, it can be useful for us to be aware of all of our negative (as well as positive) feelings in the countertransference. For example, even a negative feeling such as hate may be useful in the countertransference because I think 1). It is often overlooked, by analysts, patients, parents; 2). It may be found side-by-side with other undesired feelings; and 3). Known or unknown, it is (or was) a part of many relationships.

There’s usually another side of the coin when it comes to feelings; i.e., sex/aggression, frustration/love, etc.., etc… One of the many benefits of a bit of experience is that after a time modern therapists sometimes develop a type of “inner voice” with respect to their range of feelings and interventions.

Asked to describe the process: “How did you know that was the right intervention at the right time?”

The experienced therapist may answer: “I’m not sure;” and only later be able to articulate a specific reason.

Acceptance of all of our feelings results in benefits for modern therapists as well as for their patients.

References

Fennessy, J. (2006). The Mind in Modern Psychoanalysis, online at http://modernpsychoanalysis.org/Documents/MindMod_PsyA.pdf

© 2008, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Modern Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalysis

Clinical Techniques: #4 - Joining

Clinical Techniques: #4 - Joining

According to Dr. Hyman Spotnitz:

“Many communications that have a maturational effect reflect the old adage: If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em… The term ‘joining’ denotes the use of one or more ego-modifying techniques to help the patient move out of a repetitive pattern.”

(1985, p. 253).

This statement gives us some indication of both what “joining” is, and why we might use it; i.e., that joining avoids attacking the patient’s defensive mechanisms, while simultaneously helping the patient to engage in progressive communication with the therapist.

Dr. Benjamin D. Margolis says that:

“The ultimate purpose, in every instance, is to help the patient mobilize and liberate the negative (as well as the positive) feelings he has long kept submerged. The analyst accomplishes this by first joining the patient’s resistance and supporting and reinforcing his uncooperative attitudes.”

(1983, pp. 219-220).

Reinforcing uncooperative attitudes!?! – statements such as these give the reader some idea of how uniquely modern analysis works, as well as why it often works when other methods fail.

Dr. Spotnitz amplifies the intent even further; saying that

“The term ‘joining techniques’ is loosely applied to a number of basically similar interventions… By and large, all of these interventions communicate the same message to the patient: I am like you.” (1985, p. 263).

Thus, patients who may have spent a lifetime being criticized by well-meaning others, commonly find that modern psychoanalysis provides them with an experience where they can feel connected in a way they have rarely experienced otherwise in their lives.

A theoretical way of looking at the same thing is to say that “By functioning as an ego-syntonic object, the analyst facilitates the development of transference on a narcissistic basis as well as its eventual transformation into object transference.” (Spotnitz, 1976a, p. 142).

The various joining techniques used by modern analysts are sometimes further roughly divided into “ego-syntonic” and “ego-dystonic” joining.

One of the better known ego-dystonic joins used by Dr. Spotnitz related that when a

“… young man, trying to force the analyst to talk to him, shouted that he would 'get off the couch and bash your head in.’ The analyst responded ‘I’ll bash yours in before you can get off the couch.’”

(Spotnitz, 1985, p. 265).

Ego-dystonic joins such as this appear counterintuitive, but frequently help patient’s verbalize negative affects and feel more comfortable in the treatment relationship.

Benjamin Margolis has given us some wonderful examples of different types of ego-syntonic joining:

“P: I slept poorly last might and feel tired today.
A: You look tired.

P: I feel miserable.
A: You’re entitled to feel miserable.

P: (after a harrowing review of his life’s history) I haven’t had
much in the way of pleasure.
A: Life has been one misery after another.”

(1983, p. 214).

None of these techniques are applied in a cavalier manner. As with any of the other modern analytic techniques we have discussed, therapists would do well to keep in mind Dr. Spotnitz’s caution, (1976b, p. 146), that

“Technical proficiency is of little avail if it does not help the analyst to develop in himself the kind of feelings that will catalyze the release of his own emotional energy in language.”

Margolis echoes Spotnitz by saying:

“Joining is a powerful technique for resolving narcissistic resistance in psychoanalytic therapy. Its very power, however, calls for prudence in determining when and how to apply it… Generally speaking, technical skills such as joining come into perspective only as they further the objectives of a comprehensive therapeutic design… The joining technique, presented as it is, has no intrinsic significance.”

(1983, p. 211, emphasis original).

The significance comes from a trained therapist utilizing the technique when necessary and when this is something the patient needs. As Margolis says,

“If the analyst is in resonance with the patient, his joining and mirroring remarks, while addressed to the literal resistance message, will simultaneously engage the unconscious emotional contents sheltering behind it.”

(1983, p. 213).

Clinical techniques such as joining have greatly increased the ability of modern psychoanalysts to deal with difficulties in patients which were previously thought to be irremediable.

Though years of modern analytic training may be necessary to obtain even rudimentary proficiency in these techniques, they help modern therapists provide effective treatment to those who were formerly believed to be beyond help.

References

Margolis, B. (1983). Joining, Mirroring, Psychological Reflection: Terminology, Definitions, Theoretical Considerations. (Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. 11, No. 1 & 2, 1983; as reprinted in Modern Psychoanalysis, Papers of Benjamin Margolis).

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.

Spotnitz, H. (1976a). Psychotherapy of Preoedipal Conditions, N.Y., Jason Aronson.

Spotnitz, H. and Meadow, P. (1976b). Treatment of the Narcissistic Neuroses, NY, Man. Center For Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies.


© 2008, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org/

Modern Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalysis

Beannachtaí Lá Fhéile Pádraig Daoibh!

Beannachtaí Lá Fhéile Pádraig Daoibh!

He stumbled home from Clifden Fair
With drunken song, and cheeks aglow.

Yet there was something in his air
That told of kingship long ago.

I sighed - and innly cried with grief
That one so high should fall so low.

But he plucked a flower and sniffed its scent
And waved it toward the sunset sky

Some old sweet rapture thro’ him went
And kindled in his bloodshot eye

I turned - and innly burned with joy
That one so low should rise so high.

"High & Low" by James Cousins (1873-1956).


2008, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Modern Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalysis, Ireland, Irish

Clinical Techniques: #3 - Interpretation

Clinical Techniques: #3 - Interpretation

It may be useful to begin looking at this topic by briefly contrasting the modern understanding of the uses of interpretation with the classical approach. According to Dr. Hyman Spotnitz (1985, p. 166):

“Primary reliance on interpretive procedures is a distinguishing characteristic of the classical method. ‘(t)he ideal analytic technique consists in the analyst’s doing nothing other than interpreting,”… (quoting Fenichel and others)…, and the goal of the analyst is to provide insight.”

Where do verbal interpretations fit in modern psychoanalysis? While our previous writings have underscored the importance of continual silent interpretation to a successful modern analysis; we have also alluded to the potentially ego-damaging effects of interpretation on many of our most vulnerable patients.

As the title of this article suggests, modern analysts do use spoken interpretation as a clinical technique; though the expectation is that they do so in a much more careful manner than previous generations of analysts.

When may verbal interpretation be used as a technique in modern psychoanalysis?

That answer depends on the analyst’s answer to another important question - Where is the patient at?

A rule of thumb that might be applied is that “(a)n intervention is of value only when it helps the patient move out of a pattern of resistant behavior that is being engaged in ‘right now.’” (Spotnitz, 1985, p. 252, emphasis original).

Thus, verbal interpretations may be used when the patient is ready for them, and when s/he will not be damaged by their use. In the “resistance to cooperation” stage, for instance:

“When the patient is really cooperative, he solicits communications that will help him verbalize spontaneously and uncover the immediate obstacles to this. Then it is desirable for the analysts to interpret and answer questions with a view to facilitating the patient’s understanding of the analytic process.” (Spotnitz, 1985, pp. 181-82).

Spoken interpretations may even help protect the patient’s ego at times. For example, one patient, deeply engaged in self-attacking behavior; and saying “My friends tell me I should just let it go. I don’t let things go. I just keep talking about the same things over and over, but nothing ever changes;” was told “Certain things may need to be talked about over and over.”

In this case, the patient’s immediate reaction showed the effectiveness of the intervention – the patient was reassured, less self-attacking, and thanked the therapist for understanding the patient’s need to talk about some things over and over.

Dr. Spotnitz, (1985, p. 276), says that in supervision of other therapists, he has sometimes given the following advice (regarding patients jumping up from the couch):

“… the analyst may make an interpretation pointing out the significance of his own behavior, such as ‘You jumped off the couch because I stirred up too much emotion.’ Such an interpretation tends to facilitate the verbalization of hostility by the patient.”

Spotnitz points out the goals of “maturational interpretations” as follows:

"Any type of intervention that helps the patient say whatever he really feels, thinks, and remembers without causing narcissistic injury (citing Lucas) is designated as a maturational communication…. At the other end of the continuum is the interpretation that is given when requested, and when it will help the patient articulate his own thoughts and feelings… The therapeutic intent underlying the maturational interpretation is to help the patient talk progressively…" (Spotnitz, 1985, p. 253, emphasis original).

The intellectual attractions of interpretation to classical psychoanalysts may have been the cause or result of a certain amount of hubris in the profession in the past. I do not mean to suggest that modern analysts are exempt from this; or that modern analysts might not “inadvertently” use verbal interpretations inappropriately.

A case that comes to mind is one where the patient previously related a long and painful life story to the therapist. Some time later the patient and the therapist had a “falling out.” The patient experienced painful feelings as coming from the therapist, but managed to verbalize those feelings, in spite of the fact that s/he and the therapist were not getting along with each other.

The therapist’s response was to say “Kind of like… (alluding to a previous incident in the patient’s life)". Rather than investigating, the therapist effectively ignored the painful feelings of the patient in this case, even while appearing to connect to them through the interpretation that was given.

What could have been happening? There are any number of possible explanations; the therapist may have been defending against the feelings, may have been thinking s/he would “help” the patient, may have been too self-absorbed to relate to the patient at that moment, etc…, etc… What seems most clear is that this therapist was missing something from the therapist’s own unconscious.

As we’ve discussed many times before, successful treatment most often depends on analysts being closely in touch with their own thoughts, feelings and impulses. This is why modern analytic training takes so long and requires so much of it’s psychoanalytic candidates.

References

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.



© 2008, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Modern Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalysis

Say Anything! - No. 1

Modern Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalysis, Humor, Cartoons, Psychoanalysis Cartoons

Clinical Techniques: #2 - Commands

Clinical Techniques: #2 - Commands

Dr. Hyman Spotnitz (1985, p.255) says that “(t)he preferred intervention when the treatment gets under way is the command.” In spite of this, the use of the command as part of our clinical armamentarium could be said to be even more frequently “overlooked” than the use of our first-mentioned clinical technique, silence.

Why is this?

First, ideally modern psychoanalysis is a patient-centered, patient-driven approach to therapy. (See e.g., Fennessy, 2008). This infers that the therapist does not attempt to direct the patient in the same way as s/he might in other therapies.

Beyond that, it must be mentioned that many of the applicants for candidacy in modern analytic programs start out with personalities that aren’t easily adapted to the idea of giving patients direct orders or commands; quite the contrary. The ability to use or develop divergent clinical techniques (such as commands) may, therefore, depend on the quality of training received in the psychoanalytic institute.

Luckily for some analysts, however, in modern psychoanalysis

“… (c)ommands are not issued to secure obedience;” instead:

“(t)he therapist’s intent … is to find out whether the patient wants to obey or defy and to help him communicate why he wants to do so – in other words, to mobilize resistance and, eventually, to resolve it.” (Spotnitz, 1985, p. 255).

According to Spotnitz, commands may be as simple as ordering the patient to “(l)ie on the couch and talk,” or they may be effectively “formulated in terms of the patient’s resistive attitude…,” for example:

“The patient may say… that he is not going to talk any more. A reminder that he is supposed to talk tends to intensify the resistance of a negatively suggestible person, but if he is told, ‘You’ve talked too much. Keep quiet for the rest of the session,’ he may reply, ‘I will not’ – and continue talking.” (1985, p. 255).

Notice that when we use the term “resistance” in modern psychoanalysis we are normally referring to “anything that interferes with talking.”

Robert J. Marshall refers to commands, such as those used in the last example, as

“… prescribing the resistance in that the therapist literally orders the patient to exercise resistance. Prescribing the resistance may be best used with negatively suggestible persons. These are persons whose characterologic mode of response is ‘No.’” (1982, p. 69).

Marshall (1982, pp. 69-70) then gives the following case involving his patient, Sam, a 10-year old boy:

“He began a series of resistances after announcing that he wasn’t going to say anything more about his life. When he reiterated his unwillingness to talk, I said (in essence), ‘Sam, you’ve really told me a tremendous amount about yourself in a short period of time. I think you deserve a vacation in talking about yourself. So now tell me what kinds of things you can do in order to avoid talking about your life.’ I also indicated to him that I thought he was an ‘expert’ in thinking up ways of avoiding talk. I enjoined him to tell me any conceivable ways of avoiding talk so that I might recognize those ways with other children. He readily revealed all of his ploys… At this point I suggested to him that there probably were good reasons for his not wanting to talk, that he should really talk if he wanted to be helped, but that it was okay if he didn’t talk. Sam then ventured some complaints and feelings about his parents about which he felt guilty.”

This excellent example shows that commands may thus be used as part of joining the patient’s resistance. (“Joining” as a clinical technique will be separately discussed in a later article).

Marshall also used “requests” similar to commands to great effect with a 13-year old boy named Bill, who appeared to be the polar opposite of Sam – Bill was extremely anxious to please his therapist. Over a period of weeks, Marshall confronted Bill “…with a series of unreasonable requests such as bringing me a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch,” until Bill was finally able to object and later “became more comfortable in revealing his rage…” towards his dictatorial therapist. (1982, p. 65).

Spotnitz indicates that commands may be used to help certain patients restore control, to help teach patients to assert themselves, or for patients who cannot tolerate or respond to questions. (1985, pp. 256-57). Likewise,

“Countercommands may be issued. When ordered to do something by a patient, the therapist may say, ‘You do it.’ A patient who commands the therapist to ‘Keep quiet,’ may be told, ‘You keep quiet too.’ ‘Tell me,’ ‘Say it,’ and other brief statements in the imperative mood are often made.” (Spotnitz, 1985, pp. 256).

As with all of our modern psychoanalytic techniques, these interventions are never used haphazardly, but only as part of the treatment plan. Though the technique is simple, the implementation of it is not – it takes a skilled modern analyst to use these techniques in furtherance of “the talking cure.”

References

Fennessy, J. (2008). Narcissism and the Contact Function, in PRACTICE MATTERS, A Journal of Modern Psychoanalytic Treatment Technique (Vol. 2), Philadelphia, PSP.

Marshall, R. (1982). Resistant Interactions: Child, Family, and Psychotherapist, NY, Human Sciences Press.

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.


© 2008, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Psychoanalysis

Clinical Techniques: #1 - Silence

Clinical Techniques: #1 - Silence

The powerful clinical techniques, or interventions, used in Modern Psychoanalysis have been mentioned in our previous articles, but it may be illustrative to examine some of them in further detail over the next few articles.

Silence is mentioned first, not because it is most important, but partly because it is sometimes overlooked or not thought of as a technique, or as an intervention. Coincidentally, it is most likely to be used, or possibly overused, with new patients or with new analysts.

How do I mean this? With new patients, the analyst has very little information to go on. A good number of modern analysts refuse to look at notes made by others in a new patient’s chart; these analysts want to get to know their patients individually, without any preconceived biases.

Modern analysts are also likely to be the least intrusive of therapists; as a rule they encourage their patients to talk about anything the patients want to talk about; rather than forcing them to answer the therapist’s questions, or requiring talk on certain subjects.

Given this situation, where very little is known about the new patients, silence is almost the intervention of choice, i.e., it is not so likely to damage a new patient’s vulnerable ego.

With new analysts, there is a natural fear of making mistakes, relevant to often justifiable concerns about the possibility of harming new patients, but also relevant to the analyst’s concern for self.

Silence is frequently the ideal tool for creating what D.W. Winnicott referred to as a “holding environment,” a place where the patient can feel safe and be given room to grow. (See e.g., Winnicott, 1986). In this sense, one could say that silence creates a space.

Silence can, likewise, be improperly used. By its nature, silence can be depriving. Analysts who remain unaware of their own strong countertransferences may even be capable of unconsciously using a depriving silence as a weapon against their patients.

Furthermore, silence can be an inappropriate response to some of the real life tragic events that can happen to patients while they are undergoing therapy, such as losing a loved one.

Dr. Spotnitz has discussed some of the different types of silence that may exist in the therapeutic setting. (See e. g., Spotnitz, 1985, pp. 249-50). Patient’s reactions to silence vary greatly. For example, Spotnitz tried remaining silent for a prolonged period with six different patients and noted six different reactions. (1976a, p. 28). Also, the same patient may report that silence provides a sense of power on one occasion and may complain about it at other times. (Spotnitz, 1976b, p.198).

One of the most important considerations in using, or not using, silence is the frustration level of the patient. Spotnitz (1976b, p. 172) says “The treatment may be preserved by controlling the degree of regression. To accomplish this the analyst may… limit the amount of silence to which the patient is exposed.”

However, the analyst must be careful in working with silence:

“It might appear that [a non-stimulating]… climate would be created if the analyst kept quiet. However, silence may at times be more stimulating than words. A great deal of anxiety can be produced by too much silence as well as by too many words. The anxiety level of the patient has to be studied, to determine whether silence or a communication would be more therapeutic in a particular situation.” (Spotnitz, 1976a, p.129).

Spotnitz (1985, p.175) also put the issue in a slightly different light in the following:

“Whereas the relatively stable patterns are just studied silently, the analyst does speak to lower the frustration-level and help the patient verbalize frustration-tension when a sudden intensification of such patterns is observed. Inasmuch as silence can have a soothing effect or exert increasing pressure on the patient, the analyst needs to regulate the amount of verbal communication he engages in, depending on whether he wants to intensify or to diminish pressure on the patient to verbalize."

Analysts need to know a great deal about themselves to effectively work with others where clinical techniques such as silence are involved. This is why modern analysts have their own analysts and supervisors to talk to, or be silent with.

References

Spotnitz, H. (1976a). Psychotherapy of Preoedipal Conditions, N.Y., Jason Aronson.

Spotnitz, H. and Meadow, P. (1976b). Treatment of the Narcissistic Neuroses, NY, Man. Center For Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies.

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.

Winnicott, D.W. (1986). Holding and Interpretation, London, The Hogarth Press.


© 2007, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org/

Psychoanalysis

Priorities in Treatment

Priorities in Treatment

Modern Psychoanalysts have adopted one of their most important guidelines from the Hippocratic Oath - “First, do no harm.”

A first step to help insure that they “do no harm” is for the analyst to rely on the contact functioning of the patient’s own ego.

Do the patient’s statements or questions indicate that the patient aware of the analyst as an individual? Is the patient content to lie on the couch and talk until hell freezes over? Does the patient prefer to be silent? etc.., etc..

In any of these cases the analyst will respond (or not respond) based on what the patient’s contacts say about the individual s/he is dealing with. Rather than imposing interpretations or unsolicited ideas on vulnerable patients; modern analysts base interventions or responses, if any, on the contacts they receive from those patients.

Additionally, as long as the patient is talking and engaging in progressive communication, the analyst is usually not intervening much at all.

When resistances become operative, there a type of hierarchy involved in dealing with them. One could say that resistances are dealt with according to a system of priorities - depending upon what kind of resistance is being manifested at the time. The priorities in treatment can be conceptualized as follows:

1. Treatment Destructive Resistance – The treatment destructive resistance (or “TDR’) is first in priority and foremost in every good analyst’s mind. It refers to anything which will destroy the treatment if left unchecked. Therefore, the first question most analysts ask when confronted with new behavior or dialogue is “Is this a potential TDR?” i.e., “can this wait, or do I need to deal with this right now?”

Patient’s questions which might be totally innocent in a more social setting, such as “How is the parking near your office?”; or patient’s statements such as “I didn’t have an easy time parking here;” would each need to be carefully investigated and considered as potential treatment destructive resistances in the modern analytic setting.

When attempting to deal with a TDR, “all bets are off;” i.e., the analyst may use a variety of clinical techniques which might not otherwise be used - to try to save the treatment. The premise is that if the patient is not coming to talk s/he will not otherwise be helped.

2. Status Quo Resistance – At this stage the patient has settled in to treatment and clings to old patterns; the patient may wish to conceal any “bad feelings” and/or concentrate on proving that s/he is a good patient.

3. Resistance to Analytic Progress – In this stage, which may be difficult to distinguish from the last, patients may experience anxiety over investigating anything new or adding anything new to the treatment. Thus, the patient may have largely abandoned the idea of clinging to the old “status quo,” but may also be fearful of the new material or of “being pushed” towards new realizations.

4. Resistance to Cooperation – Here, patients may try to concentrate exclusively on themselves; to the exclusion of their analyst. In a group environment this could be called “resistance to teamwork.” At this stage, patients may be aware of their therapists as “real people,” but may not realize the importance of working together, or may not want to give their therapists the satisfaction of doing so.

5. Resistance to Termination – This stage can involve the patient’s falling back on old habits in an effort to keep the old relationship with the analyst. In this regard, some modern analysts believe that there should be a natural end to most treatments at a certain point, whereas others do not believe treatment needs to end as long as both parties want to work together. In either case, it is usually thought that the feelings surrounding the ideas of termination (i.e., separation) should be worked through.

Spotnitz, 1985, pp.175-183, Spotnitz, 1976a, pp. 86-88 and Spotnitz, 1976b, pp. 183-191.

In actual treatment, the above stages of resistance often overlap or are blurred together. Patients can display behavior reflective of several different stages in a single session or can slip back and forth between stages over a period of time.

Also, while treatment destructive resistances are generally far more common at the beginning of treatment, they can also arise when moving from one stage of resistance to another, or at any other time.

Resistances or defenses are not always obvious or easy to detect; its a good bet that many patients even do their best to conceal them. Therefore, the best modern analysts know that they need to be constantly sensitive to their own feelings as a guide to bringing their patients successfully through every stage of treatment.

References

Spotnitz, H. (1976a). Psychotherapy of Preoedipal Conditions, N.Y., Jason Aronson.

Spotnitz, H. and Meadow, P. (1976b). Treatment of the Narcissistic Neuroses, NY, Man. Center For Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies.

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.

© 2007, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Psychoanalysis

Child Development Presentation

Child Development Presentation

Studies of early parent-child interactions, family dynamics and child development have greatly contributed to the science of Modern Psychoanalysis. The modern analyst’s ability to successfully deal with a wide range of mental and emotional difficulties is frequently informed by the knowledge gained from these studies.

One of the foremost experts in child development, Dr. James Garbarino, will be appearing at a presentation sponsored by the Philadelphia School of Psychoanalysis in the near future.

Dr. Garbarino’s credentials are truly impressive; among other things, he holds the Maude C. Clarke Chair in Humanistic Psychology and is the Director of the Center for the Human Rights of Children at Loyola University in Chicago. He earned his B.A. from St. Lawrence University in 1968 and his Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Studies from Cornell University in 1973. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association. Dr. Garbarino has served as a consultant to a wide range of organizations, including the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, the National Institute for Mental Health, the National Black Child Development Institute, the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. In 1991, he undertook missions for UNICEF to assess the impact of the Gulf War upon children in Kuwait and Iraq, and has served as a consultant for programs serving Vietnamese, Bosnian, and Croatian child refugees.

Dr. Garbarino is the author and/or editor of numerous books including: See Jane Hit: Why Girls are Growing More Violent and What We Can Do About It (2006), And Words Can Hurt Forever: How to Protect Adolescents from Bullying, Harassment, and Emotional Violence (2002), Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them (1999), and Raising Children in a Socially Toxic Environment (1995).

Dr. Garbarino’s presentation is entitled “Developmental Pathways To Aggression In Girls and Boys” and will be held on:

Saturday, October 6, 2007

from 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. at

The Radisson Warwick Hotel
1701 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103

A reception and book signing will follow at the Philadelphia School of Psychoanalysis, 313 South 16th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 from 3:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

This is such an important topic that I recommend attendance at this presentation for all clinicians or members of the public who are able to do so.

The cost for the presentation is minimal, but SPACE IS LIMITED, so early reservations are required by MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2007, Via E-Mail to: Info@Psptraining.com or by calling PSP Administrator, Tamika Hall at 215-732-8244, Ext. 222.

Further details are also available at the news page of the school's website: http://www.psptraining.com/News.html

© 2007, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.

Matawan, New Jersey 07747

E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com

http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Psychoanalysis

Curing Schizophrenia

Curing Schizophrenia

Views of Schizophrenia

A simple internet search for the word reveals a profusion of definitions with similar typecasting; e.g., Schizophrenia is “a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disorder...” (NIMHa, 2007), or “a severe, lifelong brain disorder,” (Medline, 2007), or a “disease.”

The reader may perceive something approaching a unanimity of opinion on the idea; i.e., that since this “disease” involves the brain and these authorities have deemed it to be “lifelong,” it must ipso facto be something strictly biological. A host of inferences follow: “it’s all in the genes,” “you’re born with it,” “there’s something wrong with their brains,” “the poor parents,” “medicine can cure them, if only we can find the right medicine,” “there’s no hope,” etc..., etc...

This writer thinks most of these views are about as useful as earlier ideas that people with schizophrenic symptoms were guilty of witchcraft. At least the same National Institute of Mental Health Report listed above candidly admitted:

“…schizophrenia is believed to result from a combination of environmental and genetic factors. All the tools of modern science are being used to search for the causes of this disorder.”

NIMHb, 2007.

Nature or Nurture?

In fact, medical science has been looking for a biological cause for schizophrenia for close to a century and has yet to find one. Over that time, many announcements of such “findings” have been made – always accompanied by the greatest publicity, but none were proved to be verifiable.

Another curious fact of this “disease” is that people who have it sometimes spontaneously recover. How then is it a disease? Or a brain disorder? Or lifelong? It is a rare disease indeed where people spontaneously recover and where there is no known physical etiology.

What about the “environmental” factors mentioned; i.e., the family backgrounds of the people who develop schizophrenic symptoms?

Peter Breggin, M.D. (p. 103, et seq.; see generally, 1994) speaks of one of the seminal reports on schizophrenia in the history of psychiatry, the study of the Genain Quadruplets (all of whom had schizophrenic symptoms). He notes that the report of the study recites the potential “biological” evidence for schizophrenia in that case in almost inexhaustible detail – but somehow neglects to consider it noteworthy that the family life of the quadruplets included such horrors as having acid poured on their genitals.

John Modrow, did not suffer the same horrors as the Genain Quadruplets; but did endure a significant amount of craziness from his parents, which he describes throughout his outstanding book “How to Become a Schizophrenic.”

Modrow notes that:

“The claim that most schizophrenics come from perfectly normal families deserves careful consideration… (regarding a case study he presented earlier)… Although the parents in this family appeared to be very ordinary and sensible people, they were later found to be playing with their daughter’s mind, subjecting her to strange ‘telepathy experiments’… it took over a year of investigation to discover those parents’ bizarre behavior.”

1995, pp. 205-206, emphasis original.

In spite of the extreme craziness of his own parents, Modrow still thinks of them as “basically decent and relatively normal” (1995, pp. 206); but also says:

“Had a psychiatrist examined my parents… he would have found… nothing strange or odd… Moreover, had that psychiatrist known my parents intimately for several years he probably would have retained his favorable opinion of them… However… there is no doubt in my mind that their behavior towards me was the major cause of my schizophrenic breakdown.”

Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient

It is no accident that the decisive text in modern psychoanalysis is entitled “Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient.” (Spotnitz, 1985). Though the theory and techniques in that book are equally applicable to all sorts of mental difficulties, Dr. Spotnitz arrived at those results through his groundbreaking work with schizophrenic patients.

Spotnitz (1985, p. 17) proceeded from the premise that “Regardless of etiology… there is no evidence that the condition is not completely reversible.”

“The operational concept follows: Schizophrenia is an organized mental situation, an intricately structured but psychologically unsuccessful defense against destructive behavior. Both aggressive and libidinal impulses figure in this organized situation… Obliteration of the object field of the mind and fragmentation of the ego are among the secondary consequences of the defense.”

Spotnitz, 1985, p. 57, emphasis original.

As to the “environmental” variables, Spotnitz says:

“It is unnecessary to postulate that a particular type of relationship produced the infantile pattern. It may be in part innate and in part learned. Even in cases where it was taught by the mother, her attitude may not have been pathological; there may simply have been a disequilibrium between her emotional training and the infant’s impulsivity. The dynamics of the mother-child relationship are not uniform in these cases. More significant than whether the parent actually loved, hated, or was indifferent to her infant is the fact that the totality of his environment failed to meet his specific maturational needs…”

1985, p. 68, emphasis original.

In this writer’s opinion, the techniques set forth in “Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient” work equally well with other mental difficulties because mental conditions have much in common – they are all part of the human condition.

One could even say that mental difficulties are normal; part of being human - the only question being whether we still function well in spite of our difficulties, or whether those difficulties have reached intolerable proportions, such as with the schizophrenic condition.

The Talking Cure

Many people will use Herculean efforts to appear normal, to distinguish themselves from those with problems, to split themselves off from the idea that they themselves might have any mental difficulties at all.

In spite of the efforts and protestations of these ordinary people, however, skilled observers have little difficulty seeing the underlying troubles in most of us. And, if the troubles reach a stage where they seriously interfere with the individual’s ability to love, work, or play it may be time to seek help.

When we speak of the physical illnesses we tend to think of cure as involving the complete eradication of anything relating to the condition. Not so with mental conditions – in those cases, the cure consists of placing the individual in a position where he or she can love, work and play without serious hindrance – where they can be productive and enjoy life.

The particular weakness of the individual is not likely to be completely eradicated. If a person tends to display in a phobic, or an obsessive-compulsive, or a schizophrenic, or any other way, they could have some resort to their characteristic mechanisms even after being cured. After all, we do not cure people from being human; nor do we seek to.

But, the person who has been competently treated by a modern psychoanalyst will be able to enjoy the whole range of human feelings and action available to the best of us.

References

Breggin, P. (1994). Toxic Psychiatry, New York, St. Martin's Press.

Medline. (May 24, 2007). Service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, online at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/schizophrenia.html

Modrow, J. (1995). How to Become a Schizophrenic, Everett, Wash., Apollyon Press.

NIMHa. (March 1, 2007). “Schizophrenia,” National Institute of Mental Health, online at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/healthinformation/schizophreniamenu.cfm

NIMHb. (Jan. 24, 2007). “What Causes Schizophrenia?” National Institute of Mental Health, online at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/schizoph.cfm#symptoms

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, New York, Human Sciences Press.

© 2007, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Psychoanalysis

More About Modern Psychoanalysis

More About Modern Psychoanalysis

Since Dr. Spotnitz described modern psychoanalysis as “… Freud’s method of therapy, reformulated on the basis of subsequent psychoanalytic investigation” (1985, p. 25); the question is now asked - what are the important differences between modern psychoanalysis and classical psychoanalysis?

I think it is most useful to look at this question in terms of the theoretical and clinical practice distinctions between the classical and modern schools.

Theoretical Foundations

A starting place for divergence between the two schools has to do with the inquiry mentioned in some of our previous articles; i.e., Who may be helped by psychoanalysis?

Dr. Freud’s opinion (1933, ch. 6) was that:

“The field in which analytical therapy can be applied is that of the transference-neuroses, phobias, hysterias, obsessional neuroses, and besides these such abnormalities of character as have been developed instead of these diseases. Everything other than these, such as narcissistic or psychotic conditions, is more or less unsuitable.”

This conception unfortunately resulted in huge numbers of people being deemed “unsuitable” or “unanalyzable” by the classical school of thought; while the modern theory of treatment considers most emotional, mental and personal achievement problems to be reversible through its treatment techniques.

According to Spotnitz, (1985, p.23):

“Freud and his contemporaries did not recognize the presence of narcissistic transference as such, and they did not know how to utilize it for therapeutic purposes. Since their day it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the narcissistic transference is therapeutically useful."

But, Freud (1914) did anticipate the possibility of such future developments in psychoanalysis (previously quoted on this website); when he stated the importance of:

“… the facts of transference and resistance. Any line of investigation which recognizes these two facts and takes them as the starting point of its work may call itself psychoanalysis, though it arrives at results other than my own.”

Clinical Techniques

Modern psychoanalysts are able to take advantage of a wide range of clinical techniques and interventions for ego reinforcement, emotional communication and resistance resolution. Spotnitz says:

"The essential difference is that classical analysis believes in interpretation and nothing else, no other intervention. Modern psychoanalysis is open to all interventions, all verbal interventions… Any communication that helps a patient resolve resistance to saying everything is part of modern psychoanalysis.”

Meadow, 1999, p. 6.

Some have argued that classical psychoanalysis, with its emphasis on interpretation as the sole method of “making the unconscious conscious” can also be viewed as anti-therapeutic for vulnerable patients; the same patients who are frequently seen by modern analysts.

Are modern analysts opposed to interpretation? Not at all. For modern psychoanalysts,

“…silent interpretation… is an essential ingredient of a successful analysis… Resistance is analyzed – silently and unobtrusively – but instead of trying to promote recognition, perception, or conviction, the therapist intervenes to facilitate verbalization as a connective integrative process. The patient is helped to discover for himself the genetic antecedents of his resistant behavior, explore it in terms of the analytic relationship, and articulate his own understanding.”

Spotnitz, 1985, p. 167, emphasis original.

Essentially, the vulnerable patient is protected from the likely ego-damaging effects of interpretation when used as a blunt force instrument. Clinically, modern psychoanalysis is:

“…applied to take advantage of the initial unresponsiveness of the preverbal personality to interpretive procedures and to the patient’s oscillating transference states… Safeguards against chaotic regression figure prominently in the clinical approach of the modern psychoanalyst; the therapeutic alliance is permitted to evolve at a pace the patient is able to tolerate.”

Spotnitz, 1985, p. 37.

The vast armory of clinical techniques at the disposal of the modern analyst are not indiscriminately used:

“From patient to patient… regardless of the nature of the disorder, the types of interventions employed are empirically determined by individual responsiveness.”

Spotnitz, 1985, p. 38, emphasis original.

Modern psychoanalysts anticipate that a successful analysis will bring an individual to a state of maturity where the patient will be able to tolerate verbal interpretations; but the final goals of modern psychoanalysis go further:

“… modern psychoanalysis is dedicated to achieving far more than transforming a miserable human being into one suffering from common unhappiness – the therapeutic expectation stated by Freud… The patient who has successfully undergone modern psychoanalysis emerges in a state of emotional maturity. With the full symphony of human emotions at his disposal, and abundantly equipped with psychic energy, he experiences the pleasure of performing at his full potential.”

Spotnitz, (1985, pp. 288-89).

References

Freud, S. 1914. The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement; (fr. Freud, S. (1938). Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, (Modern Library Edition, 1995; trans. Dr. A.A. Brill), NY, The Modern Library).

Freud, S. (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. (trans. W. J. H. Sprott). New York. W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.

Meadow, P. (1999). The Clinical Practice of Modern Psychoanalysis: An Interview with Hyman Spotnitz. (Meadow/Spotnitz, CMPS/Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. 24, No. 1)

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.

© 2007, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Psychoanalysis

The Id and I

The Id and I

“You must not expect me to tell you much that is new about the id, except its name. It is the obscure inaccessible part of our personality; the little we know about it we have learnt from the study of dream-work and the formation of neurotic symptoms… and can only be described as being all that the ego is not. We can come nearer to the id with images, and call it a chaos, a cauldron of seething excitement.”

Thus, Sigmund Freud (1933, pp. 106-107) described “das Es,” known to us as the Id,” but more literally meaning “the It.”

Freud considered the very nature of the Id to be shrouded in mystery, and originally part of the earliest stages of our development as individuals:

“If we look back at the developmental history of the individual and of his psychical apparatus, we shall be able to make an important distinction in the id. Originally, of course, everything was id; the ego was developed out of the id by the continual influence of the external world.” (1940b, ¶4.12b).

Therefore, it is not surprising that he thought it particularly amenable to “dream-work.” In one of Dr. Freud’s earliest writings (to his friend Fliess, in 1898), he opined that:

“Biologically, dream life seems to me to derive entirely from the residues of the prehistoric period of life (between the ages of one and three) – the same period which is the source of the unconscious and alone contains the etiology of all the psychoneurosis, the period normally characterized by an amnesia analogous to hysterical amnesia.” (Masson, 1985, p.302).

Of course, the id is merely a conception, or a model, for psychical functioning – it does not necessarily correspond to an actual structure in the brain – but, as such, it is still one of the most useful models available for viewing the unconscious.

Modern analysts frequently refer to the id energies as “primary process” energies. As Margolis puts it:

“…analysis by its very nature commands the deployment of capacities in the analyst that incorporate… primary process energies. In many ways, the analyst, resonating to the complex play of spoken and unspoken cues, transmits therapeutic reactions ‘through his hair and finger tips.’ The capacity to function on that level is an indispensable component of the analyst’s emotional inventory. Failing this, nothing moves. (1994, p. 253).

In fact, Margolis also quotes Freud (1994, p. 241) as describing “scientific creativity as ‘the succession of daringly playful fantasy and relentlessly realistic criticism’… in other words, an interplay of primary and secondary process.”

Professor Freud understood to Id to be a mainly unconscious mechanism:

“The laws of logic – above all, the law of contradiction – do not hold for processes in the id. Contradictory impulses exist side by side without neutralizing each other or drawing apart… and we are astonished to find in it an exception to the philosophers’ assertion that space and time are necessary forms to our mental acts.” (1933, pp. 106-107).

Though Freud saw the Id as a significant piece of mental development, we might infer that he was suspicious of it since it does not readily respond to our conscious control. He made it clear that:

“The id cannot be afraid, as the ego can; it is not an organization, and cannot estimate situations of danger; (Freud, 1936, ch. 8); and that “No such purpose as… protecting itself from dangers by means of anxiety can be attributed to the id. That is the business of the ego…” (Freud, 1949, p.17).

Freud additionally emphasized the Id as being isolated or “cut off” from the world:

“The core of our being, then, is formed by the obscure id, which has no direct relations with the external world and is accessible even to our own knowledge only through the medium of another agency of the mind… The id, which is cut off from the external world, has its own world of perception…” (Freud, 1940, p.195).

One also wonders whether Freud was really comfortable with the “illogic” of the Id in light of his statement “Wo Es war, soll Ich werden.” (1991, p. 112). Roughly translated – “Where It was, there I shall be,” or “Where Id was, Ego shall be;” this statement might indicate a civilized aversion to the primitive Id.

Speaking for myself, many of the difficulties people experience seem to revolve around or have their origins in the civilized superego, rather than in the id; though the solutions may lie with the latter.

Dr. Hyman Spotnitz describes how important the Id is to curing the patient:

“…what he has to do is talk from the unconscious… What he has to do is say what occurs to him. He has to tell you what he doesn’t know. He has to talk from his id… The unconscious has to be verbalized all the way by the patient. The patient doesn’t have to understand the unconscious. What matters is that it is put into words. The analyst doesn’t even have to understand it. The patient just has to say it. The analyst’s work is getting the patient to say it.” (Meadow, 1999, p. 16, emphasis added).

References

Freud, S. (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. (trans. W. J. H. Sprott). New York. W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.

Freud, S. (1936). The problem of anxiety. (Original work published 1923). New York. W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.

Freud, S. (1940). An Outline of Psychoanalysis. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XXIII.

Freud, S. (1940b). An Outline of Psychoanalysis. Hogarth Press, (1979).

Freud, S. (1949). An Outline of Psychoanalysis. (trans. James Strachey). New York. W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.

Freud, S. (1991). "The Dissection of the Psychical Personality," Lecture 31 in New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, (1932, trans. James Strachey). London & New York. Penguin Books.

Margolis, B. (1994). Research in Modern Psychoanalysis. (Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. 19, No. 2).

Masson, J. (1985, ed. and trans.). The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, 1887-1904, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. (Freud’s letter to Fliess, March 10, 1898, quoted here).

Meadow, P. (1999). The Clinical Practice of Modern Psychoanalysis: An Interview with Hyman Spotnitz. (Meadow/Spotnitz, CMPS/Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. 24, No. 1)


© 2007, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Psychoanalysis

Narcissistic Transference

Narcissistic Transference

Freud (1926, pp 52-3, emphasis original) was describing the phenomenon of transference when he said:

The neurotic sets to work because he believes in the analyst, and he believes in him because he begins to entertain certain feelings towards him…. The patient repeats, in the form of falling in love with the analyst, psychical experiences which he underwent before; he has transferred to the analyst psychical attitudes which lay ready within him…

Yet classical analysts soon found that many individuals appeared to be unable to form this type of transference with their analysts. These individuals were then often deemed “unanalyzable,” because of the central role that transference plays in psychoanalysis. (See e.g., Fennessy, 2006).

How can individuals who seem to lack the capacity to develop this “object transference” be helped? Modern psychoanalysts understand that the difficulties experienced by many patients have their origins in the pre-oedipal period. Another way of expressing this is that “(t)he narcissistic patient is arrested at some point or points in approximately the first two years of life.” (Margolis, 1981, p. 149).

Modern analysts are then able to use their skills to build a transference on a narcissistic basis. In this narcissistic transference:

“(t)he patient is permitted to mold the transference object in his own image. He builds up a picture of the therapist as someone like himself – the kind of person whom he will eventually feel free to love and hate.” (Spotnitz, 1976a, p. 109).

Dr. Spotnitz answers the question:

“’Do we want a narcissistic transference to develop?’ We do because in a negative, regressed state, the patient may experience the analyst as being like him or part of him. Or the analyst may not exist for him. The syntonic feeling of oneness is a curative one, while the feeling of aloneness, the withdrawn state, is merely protective. Because traces of narcissism remain in everyone, we seek, when beginning treatment, to create an environment that will facilitate a narcissistic transference so that, first we can work through the patient’s narcissistic aggression.” (Spotnitz, 1976b, p. 58).

Margolis further says that:

“In operational terms… the oedipal patient transfers the images of distinctive objects of his oedipal period onto the analyst, whereas the preoedipal patients transfers onto the analyst the fuzzy and ambiguous images of his narcissistic period… In building the narcissistic transference and eliciting the patient’s picture of the analyst, we are actually eliciting his picture of himself.” (1979, p.140).

Therapists who have any experience with narcissism know that narcissists are often consumed with themselves and themselves alone - given the opportunity they may talk about nothing but their own self-absorptions for years on end. Therefore, it should be apparent that the narcissistic transference will not be come into being on its own – it must be developed through the skills of the therapist.

What does the narcissistic transference look like? Spotnitz (1976a, p. 109) states that:

“On the surface it looks positive. He builds up this attitude: ‘You are like me so I like you. You spend time with me and try to understand me, and I love you for it.’ Underneath the sweet crust, however, one gets transient glimpses of the opposite attitude: ‘I hate you as I hate myself. But when I feel like hating you, I try to hate myself instead.”

Developing the narcissistic transference is normally an emotionally charged process, that proceeds at the patient’s own pace. (See generally, Fennessy, 2008). The training and clinical skills of the modern analyst, including proper use of emotional reinforcement, object-oriented questions and joining techniques, make all the difference between success and failure in nurturing this relationship.

Spotnitz (1985, p. 201) describes the result when the narcissistic transference is successfully developed:

“(w)hen one focuses on the narcissistic patterns and works consistently to help the patient verbalize frustration-tension, object transference phenomena become increasingly prominent… Eventually, the patient’s transferences are aroused by his emotional perceptions of the therapist as a parental transference figure.”

In other words, personality maturation takes place. The symbiotic relationship developed between analyst and patient (See, Spotnitz, 1984, p. 135) may help the patient’s emotional perceptions along. Repeated emotional associations to the mental images of the analyst, as constructed by the patient; strengthen the object field of the mind, or form new neuronal connections.

The greater emotional maturity which results has enduring and important ramifications for the patient in therapy, and in life.

References

Fennessy, J. (2008). Narcissism and the Contact Function, in PRACTICE MATTERS, A Journal of Modern Psychoanalytic Treatment Technique (Vol. 2), Philadelphia, PSP.

Fennessy, J. (2006). Modern Psychoanalytic Education. (Online at: http://modernpsychoanalysis.blogspot.com, June 08, 2006).

Freud, S. (1926). The Question of Lay Analysis. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XX (1925-1926).

Margolis, B. (1981). Narcissistic Transference: Further Considerations. (Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1981).

Margolis, B. (1979). Narcissistic Transference: The Product of Overlapping Self and Object Fields. (Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1979).

Spotnitz, H. (1976a). Psychotherapy of Preoedipal Conditions, N.Y., Jason Aronson.Spotnitz, H. and Meadow, P. (1976b). Treatment of the Narcissistic Neuroses, NY, Man. Center For Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies.

Spotnitz, H. (1984). The Case of Anna O.: Aggression and the Narcissistic Countertransference. In M. Rosenbaum & M. Muroff (Eds.), Anna O.: One Hundred Years of Psychoanalysis. NY, Free Press.

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.


© 2007, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Psychoanalysis

Note to Readers:

We'll be away until February this year - you may still post comments in the meantime, though they will not appear on the blog until we return.

Mise le meas,
James G. Fennessy

The False Self

The False Self

One of the most elegant discussions of the concept of "the False Self" is given by D.W. Winnicott in his article entitled "Ego Distortion in Terms of True and False Self." (1960).

In this writer's opinion that article also presents one of the best ways of understanding the concept, i.e., through a description of its usual origin in early childhood. Winnicott says that in this respect there are "two possible lines of development…" (1960, p. 145):

"(i)n the first case the mother's adaptation is good enough… (i)n the second case… the mother's adaptation… is… not good enough. The process that leads to the capacity for symbol-usage does not get started (or else it becomes broken up, with a corresponding withdrawal on the part of the infant from advantages gained)… in practice the infant lives, but lives falsely. The protest against being forced into a false existence can be detected from the earliest stages. (1960, p. 146, emphasis omitted).

Later, "(t)hrough this False Self the infant builds up a false set of relationships, and… even attains a show of being real. (Winnicott, 1960, p.146).

Thus, the personality structure of an individual may be built on this False Self foundation. Similar ideas have been discussed as narcissistic, "as if" personalities, or other terms of art; though the use of the term "False Self" seems to capture human experience on a root level. Perhaps it has something to do with Winnicott's practice as a pediatrician, which he continued along with his practice as a psychoanalyst.

Individuals operating from the position of the False Self typically experience greater than usual difficulties in connecting to others and forming meaningful relationships. The result is often a feeling of emptiness, as though a huge hollow existed in the center of the person. The person may even have the impression that he or she is "not really living" or "sleepwalking through life."

Winnicott also says that:

"(a) particular danger arises out of the not infrequent tie-up between the intellectual approach and the False Self… The world may observe academic success of a high degree, and may find it hard to believe in the very real distress of the individual concerned, who feels 'phoney' the more he or she is successful. When such individuals destroy themselves in one way or another, instead of fulfilling promise, this invariably produces a sense of shock in those who have developed high hopes of the individual." (1960, p. 144).

Additionally, some have "… a need to collect impingements from external reality so that the living-time of the individual can be filled by reactions to these impingements." (Winnicott, 1960, p. 150).

Like most other defensive structures, the False Self organization is not always unwanted. A certain amount of False Self organization is present in everyone and is necessary for survival. Do we want our police or military interacting with others based upon the spontaneous expression of their True Selves?

Dr. Winnicott explains that "(i)n health: the False Self is represented by the whole organization of the polite and mannered social attitude…" and that "the False Self defends the True Self…" (1960, p. 143); though "… the False Self, however well set up, lacks something…" (1960, p. 152).

A further consideration in treatment is that "(t)he patient's False Self can collaborate indefinitely with the analyst in the analysis of defences, being so to speak on the analyst's side of the game." (Winnicott, 1960, p. 152).

Modern psychoanalysts are well-versed in the False Self organizations that individuals may present. In addition, the techniques of modern analysis are ideally suited to treatment of these individuals. The training and emotional resilience of the modern analyst becomes decisive in the successful analysis.

References

Winnicott, D. W. (1960). "Ego Distortion in Terms of True and False Self," in The Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory of Emotional Development. New York: International UP Inc., 1965, pp. 140-152.



© 2006, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Psychoanalysis

Building the Therapeutic Relationship

Building the Therapeutic Relationship

It as axiomatic that individuals seeking psychoanalytic treatment are not prepared to be patients simply because they show up at our offices. In fact, one of the most important tasks for the modern psychoanalyst is to teach the patient how to be a patient. Ideally, this begins to take place from the very first contact made.

Frequently, the prospective patient will make this first contact through a telephone call, or through a third person; and as Dr. Hyman Spotnitz (1985, p. 116) has noted:

Before a firm appointment is made and honored, they may oscillate for a protracted period between an intense desire to be relieved of their misery and what seems to be an unconscious need to defend themselves against the anticipated stress of the analytic situation.

Yet, this initial phase of coming together (including the first tentative contacts between analyst and patient) is not regarded as a mere preliminary, but is “governed by the general plan of treatment,” and is thought to “influence all subsequent contacts between them.” (Spotnitz, 1985, p. 113).

It should be obvious that these first contacts will often include resistances, perhaps even treatment destructive resistances, just as in the therapeutic relationship that is eventually developed. (See e.g., Fennessy, 2006).

If an initial interview does take place, the modern analyst “… needs to gather only enough information to help decide whether he could treat that individual effectively and wants to work with him.” (Spotnitz, 1985, p. 118).

In this respect, many modern analysts prefer not to review previous diagnostic records for their patients. Their thinking is that they do not want to be influenced by the diagnostic impressions of others and that they want to use their own feelings in evaluating their patients. As a rule, no pressure is placed on individuals to disclose information that they may have withheld during the interview.

One of the few questions asked during the initial interview might be “why do you want treatment?” (See e.g., Spotnitz, 1985, p. 120; Spotnitz, 1976a, p. 140). Questions such as this help the modern analyst begin to explore the patient’s attitudes and willingness to cooperate.

Practical arrangements may also be brought up in the first interview. Towards the end of the interview, questions such as “have you thought about how much you’d like to pay?” or “have you thought about how often you’d like to come?” are not uncommon.

The discussion of these and similar items may also be viewed as a part of the treatment itself; i.e., in talking about all of these practical matters “(a)rrangements and rules are flexibly formulated as dynamic tools of therapy.” (Spotnitz, 1976a, p. 141).

If an agreement can be reached, the therapeutic relationship will be based upon

… what can reasonably be expected of the patient at the emotional level at which he enters treatment. Provided that he agrees verbally to participate to that extent, the analyst assumes all responsibility for the treatment process… This changes, of course, as the patient makes progress, he becomes more and more capable of assuming an increasing degree of responsibility. Eventually he assumes full responsibility for the success or failure of the treatment. (Spotnitz, 1985, p. 122).

The therapeutic relationship in modern psychoanalysis is therefore built “from the ground up,” similarly to “the mother-child relationship.” (Spotnitz, 1985, p. 113).

This modern approach is particularly useful for those who would have been deemed “unanalyzable” by classical analysts. As Dr. Spotnitz (1985, p. 115, emphasis omitted) says:

The schizophrenic patient who can cooperate… [to a great extent]… in the early stage of treatment is rarely encountered. Nevertheless, the patient becomes capable of making that contribution if the analyst accepts the responsibility for developing an effectual alliance with him.

If the analyst accepts the responsibility and the patient begins talking, the analyst then needs to consider all those other matters in the interest of the patient, such as whether and when interventions might be necessary, whether and how a transference might develop, and what the resulting therapeutic relationship will be.

References

Fennessy, J. (2006). Free Association and Resistance. (Online at: http://modernpsychoanalysis.blogspot.com, August 03, 2006).

Spotnitz, H. (1976a). Psychotherapy of Preoedipal Conditions, N.Y., Jason Aronson.

Spotnitz, H. and Meadow, P. (1976b). Treatment of the Narcissistic Neuroses, NY, Man. Center For Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies.

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.


© 2006, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Psychoanalysis

The Narcissistic Defense

The Narcissistic Defense

One of the unique offerings of modern psychoanalysis has to do with its understanding of the importance of “the narcissistic defense.” While it is well known that the narcissistic disorders possess a vast range of defenses available for use, something much more particular is meant when modern analysts refer to “the narcissistic defense.”

Dr. Spotnitz first observed the narcissistic defense during his clinical investigations of schizophrenia, and later successfully applied the concept to treatment of other patients:

“When the patient is frustrated, the appropriate way to discharge his feelings is to put them into words. If he is prevented from doing so when frustrated and feeling deprived by the analyst, he usually bottles up the aggression: in other words, he turns these feelings inward and begins to attack the self. This is referred to as the narcissistic defense.” (Spotnitz, 1976b, pp. 56-57, emphasis original).

Freud’s idea was that the “narcissistic wall… brings us to a stop,” and that “…(o)ur technical methods must accordingly be replaced by others; and we do not know yet whether we shall succeed in finding a substitute.” (1917, p.423). Spotnitz, however. “… discovered that the analyst resolves the adult patient’s repetitive self-attacks by changing the flow of destructive impulsivity.” (1976b, p. 56).

From the root of the word narcissism, it might at first appear that the problem is excessive “self-love,“ yet not all narcissism is “disordered:”

“We commonly recognize the value of narcissism, as well as the vital role it plays in creative activity. If we regard sleep as the quintessence of absorption in the self, we agree that narcissism is essential for self-preservation.
Need I point out that ‘narcissistic defense’ does not involve these kinds of normal activity? What we are concerned with is narcissism in a pathological sense, with self-love that serves as a cloak for self-hatred. The polarities of self-hatred and self-love are linked together in the defensive system, but the nuclear problem is the self-hatred.” (Spotnitz, 1976a, p. 104).

How might an individual develop the narcissistic defense? According to Spotnitz, the foundation is likely to be found in early childhood and:

“… is not total emotional deprivation... The defense seems to originate in a relationship which was gratifying to the infant in some respects, especially in meeting his biological needs for the intake of stimuli, but failed to meet the need of his mental apparatus for cooperation in discharging destructive energy. Nevertheless, he was not totally abandoned; he was sufficiently gratified to develop a strong craving for more gratification and, consequently, to place an unduly high value on the source of this bounty.” (Spotnitz, 1976a, p. 104).

Could it be that for the infant it is a question of survival? In the minds of very young children thoughts may have magical properties. If we have horrible thoughts; i.e., that mother frustrates us, or that we hate her, or worse; even for an instant – mother might leave us forever. Or, our violent thoughts might actually kill her; or maybe if we’re so monstrous as to think those thoughts, she might actually die, as punishment for our bad thoughts. We need to protect her at all costs.

Spotnitz hypothesizes that…

“(t)he infant got to understand that his mother might be damaged by his rage; perhaps she discouraged such reactions by withholding her favors. At any rate, the infantile ego which was not trained to release mobilized aggressive energy towards its object in feelings and language responded to prolonged periods of frustration by internalizing its destructive impulses. Much of the energy that would otherwise have been available for maturational processes was expended to bottle up this impulsivity…
The child who started out to console himself with self-love thus compensates for a specific type of damage incurred in the course of maturation by becoming the object of his own hatred. Sacrificially, he attacks his ego to preserve his external object.” (1976a, pp.104-05).

As with all the other defenses, “(t)he survival function of the narcissistic defense is respected. Though primitively organized, it has served to stabilize his mental apparatus in his interpersonal relations and insulate him against unwanted feeling states.” (Spotnitz, 1985, p. 164).

Modern psychoanalysts have a greater understanding and a wider range of techniques available to outflank Freud’s “stone wall of narcissism,” and “…(i)f the analyst provides the proper environment, the patient will re-experience emotional reactions in his relationship with the analyst that resemble those he had at some point in the past when his maturation was blocked.” (Spotnitz, 1976b, pp. 57-58).

With proper treatment, the narcissistic defense can thus be made unnecessary, allowing patients the full range of options and emotions available to mature individuals.

References

Freud, S. (1917). Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (Part 3) in the Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, (James Strachey, et al., Ed., 1953-74), London, Hogart Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, 16:243-463.

Spotnitz, H. (1976a). Psychotherapy of Preoedipal Conditions, N.Y., Jason Aronson.

Spotnitz, H. and Meadow, P. (1976b). Treatment of the Narcissistic Neuroses, NY, Man. Center For Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies.

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.

© 2006, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.

Matawan, New Jersey 07747

E-mail: analyst@modernpsychoanalysis.org
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org/

Psychoanalysis

Free Association and Resistance

Free Association and Resistance

Professor Freud (1913, p. 147) insisted that there was one “fundamental rule” the analyst needed to tell the patient “…at the very beginning:

‘Your talk with me must differ in one respect from ordinary conversation. Whereas usually you rightly try to keep the threads of your story together… here you must proceed differently… You will be tempted to say to yourself: ‘This or that has no connection here, or it is quite unimportant, or it is nonsensical, so it cannot be necessary to mention it.‘ Never give in to these objections… say whatever goes through your mind. Act as if you were sitting at the window of a railway train and describing… the changing views you see outside.’”

This fundamental rule of “saying everything” has since been referred to as “free association.” How do modern psychoanalysts implement this rule?

First, we can say that modern analysts accept that “(e)ven the analytic directive to talk must be viewed as resistance-provoking.” (Spotnitz, 1976b, p. 169).

Spotnitz (1976b, p. 159) commented that one of Freud’s first followers,

“Ferenczi had noted many devices used by patients to resist cure. He observed how difficult it was for the patient to follow the first rule of free flow of ideas until the close of the analysis, and that patients could not understand that free association did not demand complete thinking out of ideas, but complete utterance of what was actually thought.”

Dr. Spotnitz (1976a, p. 78) also recounts that attempting:

"… to overcome the resistance to free association by ‘making use of psychical compulsion’… got Freud into various difficulties. Although time-saving, his approach proved traumatizing to the patient, giving rise to feelings of disturbance, strangeness, withdrawal and the like which inhibited or even blocked communication.”

This classical approach to resistance undoubtedly also caused many patients to be labeled from the very beginning as “unanalyzable” or ‘not suitable for treatment.”

I think it could be said that most modern analysts recognize and respect the patient’s need for the “insulation” (or defenses) that result in resistances. They do not try to “smash through” the defenses and may even help reinforce some defenses until the patient is ready to give them up. This same respectful approach is taken with the question of free association.

Spotnitz (1976a, p. 141, emphasis added) indicates that cooperative behavior would be:

“…that the patient lie on the couch and talk. He is not instructed to free-associate. As the opening move in educating him to do so, he may be asked to tell his ‘ life story’ or simply to talk of his experiences; a severely disturbed individual may begin by recounting how he traveled to the office, what he ate for breakfast, and the like.”

In modern psychoanalysis, the patient’s job is to talk, while the analyst bears the responsibility of helping the patient do so.

In most cases, modern analysts rely on the contact function of the patient’s ego in deciding when and how to help in the patient’s attempts to satisfy this fundamental rule of “saying everything.” This approach helps to safeguard the patient’s developing ego from unwarranted intrusion by the analyst. (See e.g., Fennessy, 2008)

The modern psychoanalytic approach to resistance and free association has had the added benefit of expanding the number of people who may be helped by our methods to the point where “… (w)ith our increasing understanding of the psychological reversibility of the narcissistic disorders, the phrase ‘not suitable for treatment’ has been dropped from the vocabulary of the modern psychoanalyst.” (Spotnitz, 1976b, p. xi).

References

Fennessy, J. (2008). Narcissism and the Contact Function, in PRACTICE MATTERS, A Journal of Modern Psychoanalytic Treatment Technique (Vol. 2), Philadelphia, PSP.

Freud, S. (1913). Further Recommendations in the Technique of Psychoanalysis (On Beginning the Treatment) in Freud; Therapy and Technique, (Philip Rieff, Ed., 1978), NY, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Spotnitz, H. (1976a). Psychotherapy of Preoedipal Conditions, N.Y., Jason Aronson.

Spotnitz, H. and Meadow, P. (1976b). Treatment of the Narcissistic Neuroses, NY, Man. Center For Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies.



© 2006, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.

Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: analyst@modernpsychoanalysis.org
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org/

Psychoanalysis

Ambivalence

Ambivalence

"This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever" (Sigmund Freud - about the Irish)

There were various reactions expressed by others when the above quote first appeared in my printed list of Irish songs for St. Patrick’s Day – some were outraged, while others laughed their heads off.

Possibly either reaction is understandable, or perhaps one person could entertain both reactions at the same time. In fact, I’ve often thought that the ability to tolerate seemingly conflicting ideas at the same time was a peculiarly Irish phenomenon.

Professor Freud has also been quoted as saying that

“Neurosis is the inability to tolerate ambiguity.”

I don’t believe Freud was using “ambiguity” in a conventional American way, i.e., as a synonym for vagueness or uncertainty; but rather more in the sense of “the quality of having more than one meaning,” or “capable of being understood in more than one sense.” (New Lexicon, 1988).

That understanding of ambiguity is closer to how I mean to refer to ambivalence, i.e., as a state where one has disparate feelings (which may or may not be conflicting) at the same time.

In this respect, I am also proceeding from the belief that much of life, or of our human structure, involves ambivalence.

Observably, people may seem to be functioning adequately and yet be unaware of their ambivalence. Those feelings may instead be repressed, or subsumed in our unconscious processes; though this does not rob them of the capacity to affect our actions, thoughts, perceptions and emotional resiliency.

According to Daniel Siegel:

“Excessive rigidity in a state of mind leads to an inability to try new configurations and to adapt flexibly to changes in the environment.… Homeostasis is achieved at the expense of the connections with others and with primary emotional states of the self.” (1999, p. 237).

Modern analysts recognize this inflexible pattern as part of the structure resulting from the Narcissistic Defense, i.e., a question of what the child has learned to do with aggressive (or other “unacceptable”) impulses mobilized in his mental apparatus. Modern Psychoanalytic treatment seeks to restore human flexibility and emotional resiliency through its clinical methods.

In this sense it might even be said that recognition and acceptance of ambivalence is a good thing; or as Publius Terentius said, "I am a man: I hold that nothing human is alien to me."

References

New Lexicon Ed. (1988). New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, NY, Lexicon Publications.

Publius Terentius Afer. (185 BC - 159 BC). (Terence). Roman Comic Dramatist.

Siegel, D. (1999). The Developing Mind, NY, Guilford Press.

© 2006, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org/

Psychoanalysis

Modern Psychoanalytic Education

Modern Psychoanalytic Education

Psychoanalytic education in the United States is still mainly conducted in free-standing Institutes, rather than in University settings. Typically, certifications are awarded, rather than academic degrees, though training in Institutes is often years longer than that taken for academic degrees.

Education in Modern Psychoanalytic Institutes usually consists of around 24 courses, weekly individual analysis, supervision, clinical experience, giving and attending case presentations, and presentation of a final case. It would not be unusual to spend 7-8 years working towards certification.

Students in many Modern Psychoanalytic Institutes are permitted to proceed more or less at their own pace. Some Institutes also permit the general public to take courses in psychoanalysis for personal enrichment.

Modern Psychoanalytic Institutes do not require that their candidates be medical doctors. This follows Professor Freud’s thoughts (1926):

“No one should practice analysis who has not acquired the right to do so by a particular training. Whether such a person is a doctor or not seems to me immaterial.”

On the other hand, most Institutes require at least a Masters Degree for eventual certification. Freud’s statement (1926) would still be true, that:

“Lay analysts, as they are found practicing today, are not chance-comers, recruited and trained without discrimination, but persons of academic standing.”

What should Modern Psychoanalytic Education consist of? Perhaps part of the answer to this question lies in looking at the work modern analysts are being trained for.

According to Spotnitz (1997):

“Most of the work in the analysis consists in asking question after question, following the patient’s unconscious as closely as a shadow in the exploration that will lead to the uncovering of layer after layer, until the point is reached when the patient discovers a truth about himself through his own voice;” and “(t)he fact remains that analysts need to know their own unconscious as much as that of their patients…”

Individual analysis and supervision would, therefore, seem to be indispensable to a Modern Psychoanalytic education. The undersigned writer also highly recommends that all Modern Psychoanalytic Institutes follow the lead given by one of the Institutes – i.e., include Transference & Resistance Workshops in each semester’s curriculum.

Freud (1914) incorporated Transference & Resistance into the very definition of the question, “What is Psychoanalysis?:

“… the facts of transference and resistance. Any line of investigation which recognizes these two facts and takes them as the starting point of its work may call itself psychoanalysis, though it arrives at results other than my own.”

Transference & Resistance Workshops explore these concepts through group discussion in an experiential setting. The experience with using Transference & Resistance Workshops has been greater expression and understanding of feelings by students and less acting out. Having experienced these Workshops myself, it has been difficult for me to imagine Modern Psychoanalytic education without them.

References

Freud, S. 1914. The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement; (fr. Freud, S. (1938). Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, (Modern Library Edition, 1995; trans. Dr. A.A. Brill), NY, The Modern Library).

Freud, S. 1926. The Question of Lay Analysis; (fr. Freud, S. (1938). Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, (Modern Library Edition, 1995; trans. Dr. A.A. Brill), NY, The Modern Library).

Spotnitz, H. (1997). The Goals of Modern Psychoanalysis: The Therapeutic Resolution of Verbal and Preverbal Resistances for Patient and Analyst (CMPS/Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1997)

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.

© 2006, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org/

Psychoanalysis

Modern Psychoanalysis and Religion

Modern Psychoanalysis and Religion

One of the first questions on this topic might be: Is it useful to talk about this? The techniques used in Modern Psychoanalysis do not seem to require a religious perspective and the creeds of the major religions do not depend upon psychoanalysis. Additionally, at least some tendencies in each perspective have been noticed to consider the other either unwelcome and intrusive, or with outright hostility.

Certainly, Sigmund Freud's own ideas towards religion would fit in the latter category and at least part of the issue from the psychoanalytic view has been the inability of some to disentangle themselves from Freud's idiosyncrasies on the subject. (See e.g., Zilboorg, 1950; see also Becker, pp. 173-75, 1973).

On the other hand, it is reported that C.G. Jung "... had never, he claimed, had a patient whose neurosis was not due to his lack of religion, nor had he ever cured a patient whose cure was not due to his return to religion." (Bartemeier, p.12, 1995).

Thus, some would agree that there at least enough of an "overlap" between the goals of religion and those of psychoanalysis to warrant discussion. But, if there is to be such a discussion, what should it consist of? Alternatively, what should it not consist of? Who might be benefited by this dialogue?

In this writer's opinion, the only really useless area of inquiry concerns one trying to prove or disprove the other; i.e., advocates of religion and psychoanalysis each adhere to self-sustaining teleological tenets as part of their individual belief systems. By their very nature, these tenets are neither provable nor disprovable by outside sources; though even this should not interfere with an open dialogue if the participants are willing to respect the feelings of others. So, perhaps the dialogue should include anything the participants wish to discuss.

While one would not expect religious instruction to be included in the curriculum of psychoanalytic institutes, or psychoanalysis to be required in seminaries, it would seem to me that each could benefit from some knowledge of the other.

Modern analysts have their own spiritual existence to consider; as well as many patients who come from a religious perspective, or even have religious components integrated into their difficulties with the world. Likewise, religious leaders have their own psyches to consider; along with some followers who would be helped by being able to talk freely in a modern psychoanalytic setting. The institutional structures in place in each of the perspectives could also be broadened by further dialogue.

As a methodology, Modern Psychoanalysis should be well-suited to a dialogue about psychoanalysis and religion because of its emphasis on the role and importance of emotional communications. Individual belief systems are often highly charged with emotion, as part of the person's self-identification process with the world.

These root emotional processes have caused some to notice a correlation between the emotional forces at work in either arena, which "...emerges as the reflective awareness of powerful affectivity rather than as a purely intellectual grasp of logical relations between concepts and symbols." (Cousins, p. 36, 1995).

Perhaps it is time for us to jointly explore these powerful emotional processes.

References

Bartemeier, L.H. (1995, 1976). "Psychoanalysis and Religion," in Psychoanalysis and Catholicism. Wolman, B., ed., NY, Jason Aronson, Inc.

Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. NY, The Free Press.

Cousins, E. (1995, 1976). "The Many-leveled Psyche: Correlation Between Psychotherapy and the Spiritual Life," in Psychoanalysis and Catholicism. Wolman, B., ed., NY, Jason Aronson, Inc.

Zilboorg, G. (1950). Psychoanalysis and Religion. NY, Barnes & Noble.

© 2006, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Psychoanalysis

Long-Term Treatment in Modern Psychoanalysis

Long-Term Treatment in Modern Psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis is often criticized for taking too long, and for being far too costly when the money paid over all those years in treatment is added up. This brief writing contains just a few thoughts on the uses and resistances involved in thinking about long-term treatment.

The average time of those staying in psychoanalytic treatment in the United States is estimated to be somewhere over 5 years. Yet, when our patients first come to see us, it is unlikely that many plan on staying in treatment for over 5 years; let alone for the 10 or 20 years that some do.

As Dr. Hyman Spotnitz notes: (1985, pp. 112-13)

When contemplating treatment… pathologically narcissistic individuals are rarely interested in change. What they want primarily – and immediately – is relief from emotional suffering. They are more likely to feel that they would be investing time, money, and effort just to prove they are incurable.

So, how long is too long to be in analysis – how much time and money should one spend addressing life-long difficulties? Perhaps our views about therapy before we enter it would help with the answer.

Arnold Bernstein (1995, p. 52) contends that:

The expectations of both the therapist and the patient are derived from their preconceptions of what psychotherapy is, and of what it means to be cured. Foremost among these preconceptions is that the patient is ’sick’ and that the treatment is to be regarded as medical in nature.

Prior to entering treatment, patients can entertain a variety of other ideas about what treatment means and what might happen during the treatment. (See e.g., Strean, 1985, pp. 110-112).

Modern psychoanalysts generally try to create an analytic space or “holding environment” where it is safe for the patient to “say everything.” In this context, resistance most often refers to whatever interferes with saying everything (talking) and the modern analyst works at whatever level the patient is at.

Thus, a patient with difficulties which may have developed in the pre-verbal (or pre-oedipal) stage of maturation might be helped to develop a narcissistic transference before moving further.

According to Spotnitz, (1985, p. 121), in most cases 2 years would be “… the minimum duration for significant change to occur” and “(a)lthough the effective reversal of the schizophrenic reaction requires a minimum period of 5 years, the treatment may continue for a longer period.”

Freud (1913, p. 130) similarly stated “(t)o shorten analytic treatment is a justifiable wish… unfortunately, it is opposed by a very important factor… the slowness with which deep-going changes in the mind are accomplished.” We can certainly see the point where serious difficulties, such as schizophrenia, are concerned.

However, our minds often reject the idea of creating such intense long-term emotional attachments to strangers.

As Bernstein (1995, p. 51) says:

A prolonged therapeutic relationship is more likely to be a source of embarrassment… than a cause for rejoicing. Quite the contrary is the case when other personal human relationships come to an end. When marriages, families, friendships and loveships break up, it is generally conceded that something went wrong.

So it may horrify one, looking at it from the outside - to hear of an individual spending many thousands of dollars over 5, 10 or 20 years in analysis - but, if it helps that individual achieve a real and meaningful life, was it all worth it? Only that person can say.

In the end, perhaps its all a question of value and connection. How do we view our attachments, ourselves, and our value as human beings? What are those things worth?

References

Bernstein, A. (1995). Some Clinical Observations Upon the Emergence of the ‘Wonder Child” (CMPS/Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. XX, No. 1, 1995).

Freud, S. (1913). On Beginning the Treatment. Standard Edition. London, Hogarth Press, 12:121-144.

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.

Strean, H. (1985). Resolving Resistances in Psychotherapy, NY, Wiley.

© 2006, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com

Psychoanalysis

About Modern Psychoanalysis

The Talking Cure

Psychoanalytic Therapy is a treatment for relieving mental and emotional distress. It is often known as THE TALKING CURE because its simple technique heals through the talking interaction between patient and therapist.

Modern Psychoanalytic Services are therapeutic services based on an understanding of the unconscious and how unconscious processes affect the human mind as a whole, including actions, thoughts, perceptions and emotions.

The major function of the psychoanalytic therapist is to listen carefully and attentively to the patient in order to understand and facilitate communication. When a patient can get in touch with and express all of his or her feelings, good and bad, emotional healing can take place.

This form of treatment for mental and emotional troubles was first developed by Sigmund Freud in early part of the last century. Later psychoanalysts expanded on Freud’s work and enlarged the range of problems that could be treated. New treatment techniques and insights into human behavior have also developed.

The science of Modern Psychoanalysis has demonstrated its ability to successfully deal with mental and emotional difficulties through its studies of early parent-child interactions, frustration, social relations, family dynamics and psychosomatics.

Modern Psychoanalysis

Modern Psychoanalysis, as expressed by its founder, Dr. Hyman Spotnitz, has gone beyond Freud, and addresses modern needs, since it “...has been reformulated on the basis of subsequent psychoanalytic investigation.”

Modern Psychoanalysis utilizes a wide range of interventions including ego reinforcement, emotional communication and resistance resolution.

The modern theory of treatment considers most emotional, mental and personal achievement problems to be reversible through our techniques.

The psychoanalytic therapist does not usually give lectures or advice about how the patient ought to manage his or her life. Instead, the analyst prefers to help the patient understand why he or she is unable to solve problems and internal conflicts that might be preventing one from knowing what to do in life.

Our goal is to help people improve the quality of their lives and their relationships.

James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey
Email: njanalyst@hotmail.com

Psychoanalysis